025.431: The Dewey blog

EPC Meeting 131

Giles Martin took the photo of EPC at OCLC on June 12, 2009.  Standing, from left to right: Andrea Kappler (Evansville Vanderburgh [IN] Public Library), Sandra Singh (University of British Columbia), Lyn McKinney (Billings [MT] Senior High School), and Welna van Eeden (University of South Africa); seated, from left to right: Karl Debus-López (Library of Congress, standing in for Beacher Wiggins), David Farris (Library and Archives Canada), EPC Vice-Chair Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing), and Deborah Rose-Lefmann (Northwestern University).

It seems like forever since I’ve written something here, and I’m suppressing the urge to report chronologically on my activities since the last time you heard from me (so stay tuned for reports on three very interesting meetings [one in Houston and two in Vienna] in which I participated back in April).  Today, I’m jumping forward to last week with a quick summary of Meeting 131 of the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC), which was held June 10-12 at OCLC.  The meeting was chaired by EPC Vice-Chair Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing).  EPC Chair Caroline Kent (British Library) and new EPC member Jonathan Furner (UCLA [and yes, former DDC assistant editor and creator of 025.431: The Dewey blog]) were unable to attend in person, but e-mailed voluminous comments that were considered by the committee during the meeting.

EPC reviewed the full version of Table 1 (Standard Subdivisions).  One provision was postponed for discussion at Meeting 132 in November 2009: the use of T1—0286 Waste technology to represent green technology.  We'll have more to say about that issue once we sort out the ripple effects throughout the schedules.  In Table 2 (Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons), EPC looked mostly to the past in reviewing provisions for the ancient world in T2—3.  Some of the ancient world proposals have implications for the modern world versions of the Mediterranean and Black Sea regions, Asia Minor, and Turkey.  EPC also approved some adjustments to German administrative units proposed by colleagues at Deutsche Nationalbibliothek, plus the placement of the Barents Sea region, North Calotte, and Sápmi (Lapland).  EPC approved the full version of Table 3 (Subdivisions for the Arts, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms), and an expansion for Hakka (Han Chinese who speak Hakka dialect) in Table 5 (Ethnic and National Groups).

EPC approved updates in the following schedules: 004-006 Computer science, 200 Religion, 300 Social sciences, 301-307 Sociology and anthropology, 320 Political science, 330 Economics, 340 Law, 400 Language, 610 Medicine and health, 780 Music, 800 Literature, and 960 History of Africa.  EPC reviewed preliminary versions of 640 Home and family management, 690 Buildings, 710 Civic and landscape art, and 720 Architecture.  On the recommendation of EPC, we plan to post the sewing and clothing sections of 646 shortly for outside comment.  EPC also reviewed a preliminary proposal for updates to sections of 372.3-372.8 Elementary education in specific subjects.  In addition to comments from members and observers on the private EPC mailing list, EPC’s deliberations were informed by reports from the working groups associated with the European DDC Users’ Group (EDUG) in the areas of law, education, archaeology, and technical issues.

EPC reviewed several research initiatives from the OCLC Office of Research and the Dewey editorial team, plus the latest draft specification for Dewey Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs).  We’ll be back with more information on these initiatives later.

EPC scheduled a follow-up electronic Meeting 131A (to be held August 3-28, 2009), during which the committee will address use of the term “encompassing” in the DDC, plus minor issues in 400, 710, and 780.  Meeting 132 will be held November 16-17, 2009, at the Library of Congress.

One other major Dewey event took place last week—June 12 was the last day for updating Dewey data in the current Editorial Support System (ESS).  The new ESS, along with new data formats based on the MARC classification and authority formats, is scheduled to be launched on July 5 (another reason for our recent periods of silence on this blog).  Rebecca wrote a bit about the new ESS last month—watch for more reports shortly.

Endangered Languages

Endangered languages have been in the news since the “United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) . . . launched an interactive electronic version of its atlas cataloguing some 2,500 endangered languages worldwide” (UNESCO press release), e.g., the Washington Post article “Preserving Languages Is About More Than Words.”

Interdisciplinary works on endangered languages are classed in 408.9 Treatment of language with respect to ethnic and national groups (built with 4 from 400 Language plus T1—089 Ethnic and national groups).  The interdisciplinary number for language and languages is 400 Language; it has unsubdivided Relative Index entries “Language” and “Languages” and the class-here note “Class here interdisciplinary works on language and literature.”  Standard subdivision T1—089 Ethnic and national groups has the note “Class here ethnic and national minorities.”  It is especially the languages spoken by minority groups that are endangered.  An example of a work classed in 408.9 is Endangered Languages: What Role for the Specialist?

By the rule of zero, works on a specific endangered language are classed with the language in 420-490 Specific languages.  For example, A Tarifit Berber-English Dictionary: Documenting an Endangered Language is classed in 493.3 Berber languages (built with 493 Non-Semitic Afro-Asiatic languages plus 3 from T6—933 Berber languages, as instructed at 493).  Tarifit Berber is also known as Rif language, and Rif is in the including note at T6—933 Berber languages; hence no further addition is possible. 

Sociological and anthropological works on endangered languages are classed in 306.44 Language, which has the note “Class here anthropological linguistics, ethnolinguistics, sociolinguistics.”  The number 306.44 is subordinate to 302–307 Specific topics in sociology and anthropology. An example of a work classed in 306.44 is Discourses of Endangerment: Ideology and Interest in the Defence of Languages.

In WebDewey the LCSH “Endangered languages” has been editorially mapped to both 408.9 Treatment of language with respect to ethnic and national groups and 306.44 Language.

Language variations around the world

Funny how one simple little question (“Where do comprehensive works on British slang belong?”) caused us such consternation.  Our proposed response affects dozens of records.  (OK, so the British slang—that is, English slang in the British Isles—solution involves only three records, but then that solution has to be propagated to languages throughout the 400s.)

Currently, the schedule provides for geographic variations of English (including slang) as follows:

>                                   427.1–427.9       *‡Geographic variations

 

Geographic variations of Middle English relocated to

427.02094–427.02099

 

Class comprehensive works in 427

 

427.1–.8        Geographic variations in England

 

Add to 427 the numbers following —42 in notation 421–428 from Table 2, e.g., dialects of London 427.1

 

Class geographic variations in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in 427.941–427.942, e.g., dialects of North Wales 427.94291

427.9  *‡      Geographic variations in other places

 

Class here pidgins, creoles

 

Add to 427.9 notation 4–9 from Table 2, e.g., dialects of Canada 427.971, Tok Pisin 427.9953

 

There appears to be no number for geographic variations of English in the whole of England other than 427.  This number is less than satisfactory since geographic variations in England and geographic variations around the world both go in this number, while geographic variations within England and in specific places elsewhere around the world get their own specific numbers.  At the same time, it is unclear whether geographic variations of English in the whole of the British Isles should join geographic variations of English in the whole of England in 427 or whether the whole of the British Isles can be interpreted as a place other than England, in which case the number 427.941 would be appropriate.

 

The main point of treating geographic variations in England separately from geographic variations in other places is to use a shorter notation for geographic variations in the “mother country,” on the assumption that more of the literature belongs there.  But our study of the geographic variations literature in WorldCat has uncovered the fact that for some languages, the literary warrant for geographic variations outside the country/countries with which the language is primarily associated is far greater than for geographic variations within.  Our proposed solution is to treat geographic variations of languages uniformly, as shown here:

 

427‡   Historical and geographic variations, modern nongeographic variations of English

 

Number built according to instructions under 421–428

 

For Old English (Anglo-Saxon), see 429

 

427 [.1–.8]    Geographic variations in England

 

Relocated to 427.942

 

427.9  *‡      Geographic variations

 

427.91 *‡                Geographic variations in areas, regions, places in general

 

Add to base number 427.91 the numbers following —1 in notation 11–19 from Table 2, e.g., dialects of the British empire 427.9171241

 

427.94–.99              Geographic variations in the modern world

 

Add to base number 427.9 notation 4–9 from Table 2, e.g., geographic variations in England 427.942 [formerly 427.1–427.8], slang of British Isles 427.941, dialects of Canada 427.971, Tok Pisin 427.9953

 

For geographic variations of Middle English, see 427.02094–427.02099

 

The proposed changes involve reuse of several numbers in 457.9 Geographic variations of Italian and 469.79 Geographic variations of Portuguese; the reuse affects a limited number of records in WorldCat.  Consider, for example, 457.91, which prior to the relocation of Sardinian in the January 2007 New and Changed Entries (in Word and PDF formats), was the number for geographic variations of Italian in the Cagliari province of Sardinia.  With the proposed changes, it becomes the number for geographic variations of Italian in areas, regions, places in general.  

The entire set of proposed changes can be viewed in the PDF here. 

At Meeting 130, the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC) approved the changes to geographic language variations for publication in DDC 23 (scheduled to be published in late calendar year 2010).  Aware of the impact that the changes could have on institutions around the world, EPC also advised us to post the proposed changes and our plan to hold implementation of the changes until publication of DDC 23 for comment on the blog.  We now invite your feedback on both the proposed changes and the implementation plan, either posted as a comment to this blog entry or sent directly to dewey@loc.gov.  We request feedback by April 30, 2009.

EPC Meeting 130

The Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC)* held Meeting 130 at the Library of Congress November 18-19.  The meeting was chaired by Caroline Kent (British Library); Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing) was re-elected vice-chair for another two-year term. 

Prior to Meeting 130, EPC held an electronic pre-meeting, and approved updates to historical periods; modernization of the treatment of radio programs, motion pictures, and television programs regardless of method of distribution; and updates to 510 Mathematics.  All but the last will be distributed to users in early 2009.  EPC also approved, with minor modification, the long-planned updates to groups of people in Table 1 and 305-306—we plan to release the updates in mid-2009.

EPC discussed two sets of updates to Table 2 (Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons)—the conversion of the relocation information and corresponding changes in the reorganization of Scotland, England, and Wales presented in DDC 22; and further updates to the area table for Indonesia.  Both sets of changes require additional consultation with in-country groups.   EPC approved a final round of updates to Table 4 (Subdivisions of Individual Languages and Language Families, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms), Table 5 (Ethnic and National Groups), and Table 6 (Languages)—most of the updates will be distributed to users in mid-2009.

In the schedules, EPC approved updates in the following areas: 001 Knowledge; 002 The book; 150 Psychology; 330 Economics; 390 Customs, etiquette, folklore; 400 Language (including the relocation of computational linguistics); 610 Medicine and health; 640 Home and family management; 650 Management and auxiliary services; 660 Chemical engineering & related technologies; 730 Sculpture and related arts; 740 Graphic arts and decorative arts; 750 Painting and paintings; 760 Printmaking and prints; 770.23 Photography as a profession, occupation, hobby; and 790 Recreational and performing arts. EPC also approved updates to the current historical periods in 947 Russia and 968 South Africa. Updates in many of these areas will be released during 2009.  EPC reviewed reports on work under way in 340 Law, and discussion papers on 370 Education and 780 Music. We will be seeking advice from users on a number of topics discussed at Meeting 130, including subjects in primary school curricula, language variations, meals, clothing, musical styles, and literary periods for Galician.

EPC reviewed several research initiatives from the OCLC Office of Research and the Dewey editorial team, plus draft guidelines for classifying photographs for the World Digital Library project—we’ll blog about these activities separately in the coming weeks.

On November 18, EPC held a special dinner in honor of assistant editor Winton Matthews and outgoing member Arlene Taylor.  Winton has indicated that he plans to retire in early 2009—we’ll share the resolution passed by EPC in his honor later on the occasion of his retirement.  Arlene Taylor served on EPC 2000–2008.  The committee's resolution honoring Arlene reads in part:

Whereas Arlene Taylor . . . participated in the development and review of Edition 22 (2003) and Abridged Edition 14 (2004) of the Dewey Decimal Classification, and in the publication of ongoing updates in WebDewey and Abridged WebDewey; . . . focused in particular on the needs of students and teachers of the DDC in her comments; . . . contributed “Teaching the Dewey Decimal Classification System” to a special issue of Cataloging & Classification Quarterly devoted to the DDC; . . . presented “Research in Knowledge Organization” at Meeting 116; . . . participated in the EPC planning retreat, “The Future of the Dewey Decimal Classification,” March 15-18, 2004, at OCLC;  . . . paid special attention to the treatment of groups of people, and in particular prompted improvements to the caption for people in early adulthood and the terminology for children of unmarried parents (the latter formerly “children born out of wedlock”);  . . . Be it resolved that the members of the Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee here assembled at the One Hundred Thirtieth Meeting of said committee, the DDC editors, and staff at the Library of Congress Dewey Section and OCLC express to Arlene Taylor their deep gratitude and appreciation for her service and commitment to the Committee and the Classification, their regret that she will no longer be one of their number, and their wishes for her continued success and happiness now that she has retired from the Committee.

*Photo at top of EPC at LC on November 18, 2008—from left to right: Beacher Wiggins (Library of Congress), Vice Chair Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing), Welna van Eeden (University of South Africa), Sandra Singh (University of British Columbia), Lyn McKinney (Billings [MT] Senior High School), EPC Chair Caroline Kent (British Library), Andrea Kappler (Evansville Vanderburgh [IN] Public Library), Arlene Taylor (University of Pittsburgh SIS, retired), David Farris (Library and Archives Canada), and Deborah Rose-Lefmann (Northwestern University).

Computational Linguistics

Ever have difficulty deciding whether material should be classed in 006.35 Natural language processing or in 410.285 Computational linguistics? (It would seem so, since many works have been classed in both numbers.) Since we have also found it difficult to distinguish clearly between the two numbers, we decided to take advantage of a recent major gathering of computational linguists at ACL-08: HLT (ACL = Association of Computational Linguistics; HLT = Human Language Technology) to get their feedback on the treatment of computational linguistics and natural language processing in the DDC.

According to LCSH, the intended distinction between computational linguistics and natural language processing is that Computational linguistics (LCC: P98-98.5; DDC: 410.285; 467 WorldCat records) is for “works on the application of computers in processing and analyzing language,” whereas Natural language processing (Computer science) (LCC: QA76.9.N38; DDC: 006.35; 365 WorldCat records) is for “works on the computer processing of natural language for the purpose of enabling humans to interact with computers in natural language.” Dewey currently adopts this same distinction. The distinction, however, does not reflect current thought.

Computational linguists at ACL-08 tended to agree that “natural language processing” (NLP) and “computational linguistics” (CL) mean pretty much the same thing (or, if different, that the meaning of natural language processing is encompassed within the meaning of computational linguistics). That makes our decision to merge natural language processing and computational linguistics relatively easy.

Deciding where the merged subject should go is much harder. On the one hand, there was agreement that the relative contribution of computer science to computational linguistics is greater than the contribution of linguistics. Similarly, there was agreement that a background in computer science is more essential for computational linguistics than a background in linguistics. Further, computer scientists are much more likely than linguists to embrace computational linguistics as part of their field. From these statements, classing the merged natural language processing / computational linguistics in 006 might seem a no-brainer. On the other hand, however, some of the observations shared suggest that the situation may not be so cut-and-dry: Computational linguistics really belongs in linguistics, but linguists don’t realize it yet. Computer scientists sometimes change the field they apply their skills to (that is, a junior computational linguist might not continue to work in computational linguistics). As a supervisor, you get better results teaching computer science to a linguist than teaching linguistics to a computer scientist.

There are at least two distinctions made in computational linguistics that should inform our decision. The first is a distinction between symbolic and statistical approaches to computational linguistics, the former emphasizing linguistics-based representations of natural language, the latter emphasizing quantitative representations of natural language. Many symbolic approaches could be classed comfortably within linguistics; however, the same could be said of statistical approaches considerably less often.

A second distinction is made in computational linguistics between tasks and applications: Computational linguistics tasks (e.g., part-of-speech tagging, parsing, word sense disambiguation, text segmentation) rely, wholly or in part, on specific properties of language in their processing and analysis and may be combined to form applications of extrinsic value; computational linguistics applications (e.g., question answering, information retrieval, automatic abstracting, machine translation) are comprised of components addressing multiple linguistic properties and are of extrinsic value. Again, one end of our spectrum (in this case, tasks) is much more like linguistics than the other (in this case, applications—unless the application is itself in linguistics, e.g., translation), but all applications carry out some number of tasks.

It appears to us that the best solution would be to drop the distinction between natural language processing and computational linguistics by relocating comprehensive and interdisciplinary works on computational linguistics from 410.285 to 006.35. We would continue to use 410.285 in its broad meaning as computer applications in linguistics; for example, the SIL (initially known as the Summer Institute of Linguistics) software catalog, which supports the work of field linguists, would be classed in 410.28553. This catalog includes, inter alia, fonts, a concordance generator, a tool for drawing syntax trees, interlinear text editors, a Spanish verb conjugator, and a program for learning the International Phonetic Alphabet.

We would love to hear your reactions to this solution. (Or if you have another solution that accounts for the interdisciplinary nature of computational linguistics, we would love to hear that, too.) For best consideration, please either comment on this blog or send email to dewey@loc.gov  by August 15.

EPC Meeting 129

The Decimal Classification Editorial Policy Committee (EPC)* met at OCLC May 7-9, 2008. EPC approved several adjustments to the proposed overhaul of the treatment of groups of people (including a separate number for intersex people based on feedback from users) plus the implementation plan for the changes. The current plan is to post draft versions of Table 1 and 305-306 on the Dewey web site in August 2008 (with links from the Dewey blog). We will request comments on the content and implementation plan by October 30, 2008—this will permit discussion of user comments at EPC Meeting 130 in November 2008. It is our intention to introduce the changes to the treatment of groups of people throughout the DDC by second quarter calendar year 2009 in WebDewey and Abridged WebDewey. We plan to make final PDFs of Table 1 and 305-306 available on the Dewey web site at the same time the changes are implemented in the web versions of the DDC. The changes introduced in the web versions of the DDC will also appear in the print version of DDC 23 (scheduled to be published in late calendar year 2010).

In addition to the changes to groups of people in Table 1, EPC approved two changes to T1—079 Competition, awards, financial support: clarification of the add instruction from Table 2, and the relocation of festivals from T1—079 to T1—074 Museums, collections, exhibits. Watch this space for more information on these changes. EPC also approved several changes in Table 2 (Geographic Areas, Historical Periods, Persons) for Belgium, South Africa, Sweden, and Clifton Forge, Va. (the last reflects a rare change within administrative units in the U.S.).  In Table 3 (Subdivisions for the Arts, for Individual Literatures, for Specific Literary Forms), EPC approved new provisions for autobiographical fiction, biographical fiction, and alternative histories.  In Table 6 (Languages), EPC approved updates to Indonesian languages and Galician, plus several miscellaneous updates. Similar changes were made to parallel notation in Table 5 (Ethnic and National Groups).

In the schedules, EPC approved updates in the following areas: 004-006 Computer science, 025.4 Subject analysis and control, 160 Logic, 320 Political science, 364.16 Offenses against property, 398.2 Folk literature, 400 Language, 510 Mathematics, 560-590 Life sciences, 610 Medicine and health, 700 The arts, 800 Literature, and 900 History, geography, and auxiliary disciplines. EPC also reviewed reports on work under way in 200 Religion, 340 Law, and 370 Education. The changes in 364.16, along with other updates to the treatment of criminal offenses, will be the focus of the June New and Changed Entries. We will discuss the proposed updates and open issues in several of the aforementioned schedules in the coming weeks in the Dewey blog—stay tuned.

EPC reviewed several research initiatives from the OCLC Office of Research and the Dewey editorial team. Diane Vizine-Goetz presented current work on a prototype classification web service and pilot terminology services. Dewey editorial team members presented progress reports on several current research projects: machine-assisted derivation of the abridged edition, mixed translation models, identification of the relationship of Relative Index terms to Dewey classes, and improvements to Dewey captions. The team also briefed EPC on our new editorial support system, recent changes to the representation of the DDC in MARC21 formats, and a proposed new approach to the display of relocations and discontinuations in DDC class records. Further, the team gave EPC a progress report on the development of DDC training materials being posted online. There was also a lively discussion on how we might facilitate development and sharing of “Dewey neighborhoods” by Dewey users (see the innovative presentation by the Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library at the March 2008 Public Library Association (PLA) Conference).

EPC will hold a follow-up electronic meeting (Meeting 129A) during June 2008 to resolve some minor open issues from Meeting 129. The group will meet next in person at the Library of Congress in November 2008.

*Photo at top of EPC at OCLC on May 8, 2008—standing from left to right: Lyn McKinney (Billings [MT] Senior High School), Sandra Singh (Vancouver [BC] Public Library), David Farris (Library and Archives Canada), Welna van Eeden (University of South Africa), Andrea Kappler (Evansville Vanderburgh [IN] Public Library) and EPC Chair Caroline Kent (British Library). Seated from left to right: Arlene Taylor (University of Pittsburgh SIS, retired), Vice Chair Anne Robertson (Australian Committee on Cataloguing), and Deborah Rose-Lefmann (Northwestern University).

Dewey Crossword Puzzle #1—Answers

A blog entry posted last week gave clues for a crossword puzzle composed of DDC numbers (but minus decimal points).  Did anyone actually do the puzzle? Too hard? Too easy? Want more? Let us hear from you.

The clues are repeated below, with the intended DDC notation for each clue given in square brackets; the relationship between the clue and the notation is also given. Built numbers are explained further below.

ACROSS
1 Superconductivity [621.35; caption]
2 General classification schemes [025.43; caption: General classification systems]
3 Sami [494.55; Relative Index: Sami language; built number]
4 Initiation of business enterprises devoted to literature [806.81; built number]
5 Crossword puzzles (abridged) [793.73; Including . . . crossword puzzles . . .]

DOWN
1 People with physical disabilities in technology [604.87; built number]
2 Geography, history, chronology, persons in the Apocrypha [229.09; built number]
3 Dreams [154.63; caption]
4 Criminal law of  Venezuela [345.87; built number]
5 Mechanical wave theory [535.13; caption]

494.55 Sami is built from 494 Uralic languages plus 55 from T6—9455 Sami, following the instructions at 494. 

806.81 Initiation of business enterprises devoted to literature is built from 8 Literature (i.e., 800, minus its final placeholder zeros, which disappear when further notation is added) plus T1—0681 Organization and financial management (“including . . . initiation of business enterprises”).

604.87 People with physical disabilities in technology is built from 604.8 History and description with respect to kinds of persons, a displaced standard subdivision T1—08 (displaced from 608, as indicated by the note “Do not use for history and description of technology with respect to kinds of persons; class in 604.8”), plus 7 from T1—087 Persons with disabilities and illnesses (“Class here persons with physical disabilities”), following the instructions at 604.8.

229.09 Geography, history, chronology, persons in the Apocrypha is built from 229 Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, intertestamental works plus 09 Geography, history, chronology, persons from the add table under 221-229 Specific parts of Bible, Apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, intertestamental works, as instructed at 229, where the instruction is given that subdivisions can be added for Apocrypha alone.    

345.87 Criminal law of Venezuela  is built from 345 Criminal law plus T2—87 Venezuela, following the instructions at 345.3–345.9 Specific jurisdictions and areas.

 

What would Freud think?, or, For the puzzle junkies among you

The night life of a Dewey editor has its moments. From time to time I have awakened to the realization that I had been dreaming a blog, or Weekly List (LCSH-to-DDC) mappings, or an expansion.  (In my first week or two here, I dreamed I had been asked to work on developing a standard subdivision for things! Joan’s comment, after a pause that perhaps masked concern that I might actually think that possible, was simply, “Massive dual provision.”  Duh.) A few days ago I awakened and realized I had been dreaming Dewey in the context of doing a crossword puzzle. After a few seconds’ amusement, I thought, “Why not?” So, draw yourself a five-by-five grid, and have fun!    Answers and explanations will be posted next week.

Unless indicated otherwise, numbers come from DDC 22. Decimal points are omitted from all numbers; all numbers are five digits. And just to keep things a little more interesting, one number is drawn from each of the main classes, except one (since 1 down and 1 across necessarily come from the same main class).

ACROSS
1 Superconductivity
2 General classification schemes
3 Sami
4 Initiation of business enterprises devoted to literature
5 Crossword puzzles (abridged)

DOWN
1 People with physical disabilities in technology
2 Geography, history, chronology, persons in the Apocrypha
3 Dreams
4 Criminal law of Venezuela
5 Mechanical wave theory

Going Meta

Ever try to learn a new language? Then chances are good it was hard to master its prepositions, because most of them have more than a single meaning. Further, their use often seems idiosyncratic—but in ways different from the idiosyncrasies of prepositions in your native language!

Such is the case with the Greek preposition, meta-, which retains the core of its various meanings when used as an English language prefix. Among its senses are:

• after / behind (for example, the title of Aristotle’s Metaphysica is taken from its traditional position in his writings after Physica);
•  change (as in metabolism, metamorphosis, metaphor); and
• more comprehensive / transcending (as in meta-analysis).

This latter sense gives us a version of “going meta” in which discussion / consideration is taken to a more abstract level. For example, metaethics addresses the meaning of the terms used in making moral judgments, the nature of moral judgments, and the basis for moral judgments. Works on metaethics are classed in 170.42 Metaethics (built with 17 Ethics plus notation T1–04 Special topics plus 2, as set forth in the schedule; the atypical notation T1–04 can be used only when specifically set forth in the schedule, as here).  In a similar way, metamathematics is concerned with the foundation of mathematics, especially with such elements as formulas, equations, and proofs. Works on metamathematics are classed in 510.1 Philosophy and theory of mathematics, where metamathematics resides in an including note (built with 51 Mathematics plus notation T1–01 Philosophy and theory). Works on metalanguage—language used to talk about or describe language—are classed at 410.1 Philosophy and theory of linguistics (built likewise with 41 Linguistics plus notation T1–01 Philosophy and theory).

The preceding examples might lead us to assume that “going meta” in the abstraction sense is all philosophical and perhaps not so very practical. But meta-analysis, by which the results of a set of smaller research studies are synthesized to yield big-picture results, proves otherwise. Works on meta-analysis applied to medical research are classed in 610.72 Research; statistical methods in medicine and health (built with 61 Medicine and health plus notation T1–072 Research; statistical methods). Works on meta-analysis applied to other disciplines would receive similar treatment within the classes for their respective disciplines.

The overall pattern is clear: Meta-topics that involve abstraction generally are built by adding a standard subdivision to the base number for the topic, often a discipline.

Metadata registries

The 10^th International Forum on Metadata Registries met in New York City, July 9-11, 2007. The conference was based on relationships among four phenomena applicable to metadata: interoperability, standards, registration, and terminology. In order for organizations to use data that have been shared with them, the data must first be described. The data become interoperable through those descriptions, which constitute the metadata. Interoperability is facilitated by the existence of standards the metadata conform to. For example, integrated library systems (ILS) typically use proprietary storage formats; their compatibility with and conversion to the MARC formats enable the sharing of bibliographic data worldwide. Data sharing is also facilitated by the development of registries—catalogs—that help others discover the existence of relevant data elsewhere, as well as by terminology control over the metadata.

Using the library and information science (LIS) world to exemplify interoperability and standards is somewhat misleading. In the world at large, data are commonly maintained in locally designed databases. Indeed, it is not uncommon for an organization to maintain conceptually the same data in multiple databases, using different (and perhaps incompatible) structures and different terminology. Standards designed to achieve interoperability usually are not imposed on the underlying databases, but only on how the databases are described. Contrast this with the sharing of bibliographic data between two institutions, even where only one uses MARC-encoded data:  The functionality supported by the two bibliographic databases would probably still be very similar, such that a mapping between the two database structures could probably be readily developed. (A crosswalk between Dublin Core and MARC is a salient example.)

The underlying difference between the bibliographic and non-bibliographic data contexts explains why non-bibliographic metadata are not classed with bibliographic metadata in 025.3 Bibliographic analysis and control. Moreover, the Forum on Metadata Registries considers databases from the “narrowly technical” perspective of 005.74 Data files and databases (see Manual at 025.04, 025.06 vs. 005.74). Interoperability is mentioned in a class-here note at 004.6 Interfacing and data communications, which, although not directly applicable to data interoperability, shows that interoperability should be classed with the technology that enables it. That’s where the metadata registry comes in, classed in 005.742 Data dictionaries and directories (where data interoperability is also classed). Metadata standards for non-bibliographic data are classed in 005.740218 (built with 005.74 Data files and databases plus T1—0218 Standards), while terminology (which in this context refers to all of terminology science) is classed in 401.4 Language and communication, the number for interdisciplinary works on terminology.